“On November 24, 2025, the U.S. Postal Service finalized a rule clarifying how and when postmarks are applied. Under modern USPS processing, many mail pieces are now postmarked at regional processing facilities, not at the local Post Office where the item was dropped off.”

Paul Hood provides commentary on a new USPS Final Rule, which goes into effect on December 24, 2025, clarifying that a postmark date may not reflect the date the USPS first received a mailed document.

A native of Louisiana (and a double LSU Tiger), Paul Hood obtained his undergraduate and law degrees from Louisiana State University and an LL.M. in taxation from Georgetown University Law Center before settling down to practice tax and estate planning law in the New Orleans area. Paul has taught at the University of New Orleans, Northeastern University, The University of Toledo College of Law and Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law. Paul has authored or co-authored nine books, including his most recent book, Yours, Mine & Ours: Estate Planning for People in Blended or Stepfamilies and hundreds of professional articles on estate and tax planning and business valuation. Paul’s website is www.paulhoodservices.com and his e-mail address is paul@paulhoodservices.com

Here is his commentary:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On November 24, 2025, the U.S. Postal Service finalized a rule clarifying how and when postmarks are applied. Under modern USPS processing, many mail pieces are now postmarked at regional processing facilities, not at the local Post Office where the item was dropped off.

FACTS:

On August 12, 2025, the United States Postal Service (USPS) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register, Postmarks and Postal Possession, 90 FR 38716 (Aug. 11, 2025) (Proposed Rule) clarifying how and when postmarks are applied.

On November 24, 2025, USPS finalized the Proposed Rule. The final rule can be found here:  FR Doc. 2025-20740.

Under modern USPS processing, many mail pieces are now postmarked at regional processing facilities, not at the local Post Office where the item was dropped off. As a result, the postmark date may be later than the date the taxpayer actually mailed the document. USPS emphasizes that a postmark only confirms that a piece was in USPS possession on the date shown — not that it was first accepted on that date.

USPS noted the following:

USPS received 130 comments on the Proposed Rule, approximately 80 of which consisted of form letters—or, more precisely, one of three distinct form letters (each one using similar, if not verbatim, language) submitted multiple times. Issues raised by these letters include the alleged “dilution” of the postmark’s meaning, impacts on rural and sparsely populated regions, and the importance of postmarks for mail-in ballots and other documents (e.g., tax returns) subject to strict deadlines. Approximately 25 additional comments were submitted by members of the public writing on their own behalf; these comments range from simple statements of opposition to detailed critiques of proposed DMM Section 608.11.

Numerous commenters—among them several election officials, one county Board of Elections, and certain independent institutions—expound at length on mail-in voting, raising concerns about postmarking deadlines and potentially discarded Ballot Mail. Finally, some industry mailers and labor organizations contributed comments echoing the concerns of other commenters, notably with regard to mail-in voting, postmarking deadlines more generally, and the need for robust public education and outreach. These concerns are discussed more fully below.

Some commenters suggested operational or staffing changes, new or expanded product offerings, educational outreach endeavors, various means of communicating relevant information to customers, and detailed revisions to DMM Section 608.11. The Postal Service thanks these commenters for their recommendations, which are discussed more fully below. Some comments raised issues (and/or advanced arguments) outside the scope of the present rulemaking. These issues and arguments, which will be excluded from the discussion below, include:

Criticism of mail-in voting as a general practice. While the Proposed Rule contains information of potential relevance to election officials and to citizens who choose to vote by mail, the Postal Service does not administer elections, establish the rules or deadlines that govern elections, or determine whether or how election jurisdictions utilize the mail or incorporate our postmark into their rules. The Postal Service also does not advocate for or against any particular voting practices (including mail-in voting).

Instead, the Postal Service collects, processes, transports, and delivers mail and packages that are mailable under federal law. As part of that role, we deliver the nation’s Election Mail when public policy makers and election officials choose to use the mail as a part of their election system and when citizens choose to utilize our services to participate in an election.

Concerns about missed or belatedly applied postmarks. As explained in the Proposed Rule, DMM Section 608.11 in no way signals a change in our postmarking procedures; postmarks will continue to be applied to Single-Piece First Class Mail pieces, both letter-shaped and flat-shaped, in the same manner and to the same extent as before. Of course, mistakes occur in the normal course of postal operations; the Proposed Rule explains as much, noting that occasional circumstances may arise where a legible postmark is not applied (for instance when two mailpieces are stuck together as they run through a cancelling machine, when the machine runs out of ink or smears when applying postmarks, and so forth). For this reason, we have informed our customers who choose to vote by mail that they can “ensure that a postmark is applied to [their] return ballot by visiting a Postal Service retail [location] and requesting a postmark from a retail associate when dropping off the ballot.” Kit 600, USPS Postmarking Guidelines (2024), available at https://about.usps.com/kits/kit600/kit600_039.htm. That same guidance would also address concerns about postmark dates, as the date on a manual (local) postmark applied at retail location aligns with the date that the customer tendered the return ballot for mailing. The present rulemaking, however, does not involve any operational changes that would increase the frequency of missed or misapplied postmarks; it is intended to explain the Postal Service’s operational use of the postmark and to clarify what information postmarks can be reliably taken to convey.

Criticisms of the Delivering for America (DFA) strategic plan. As noted in the Proposed Rule, RTO increases the likelihood that a postmark applied at originating processing facilities—the locations where postmarks are typically applied—will contain a date that does not align with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of the mailpiece. RTO was the subject of an earlier rulemaking (90 FR 10857) and separate proceedings before the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC Docket No. N2024-1). The Proposed Rule here is intended to define the postmark and inform the public of its meaning and operational uses. While the need for such clarification is due in part to RTO’s changes to transportation and processing schedules, which will enable the Postal Service to significantly increase our operational efficiency and reduce costs, thereby supporting our efforts to continue to provide universal postal services in a financially self-sufficient manner, as the law requires, neither RTO nor any other initiative within the DFA plan are themselves the subject of this Proposed Rule.

Postal Service Funding. One comment urges: “It’s essential that the USPS be funded at a level that maintains the service on which we rely.” As an initial matter, the Postal Service, by statute, is designed to be self-funded and self-sufficient. The Postal Service generally receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations. To the extent this comment is recommending legislative changes, such recommendations are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and the Postal Service’s authority. Moreover, while certain operational initiatives discussed in the Proposed Rule (e.g., RTO) are designed to promote financial sustainability, such initiatives do not themselves fall within the scope of the present rulemaking, which is, as noted, confined to the postmark. Finally, as explained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the postmark is not, and never has been, a service, but has always performed functions (e.g., cancelling postage) internal to the Postal Service operations. [emphasis added]

COMMENT:

The comments on the proposed change, and the USPS comments about the comments, are worthy of a read.

What Changed from the standpoint of my regular advice?

Nothing. Because I have always advised the use of certified mail, return receipt requested, for anything that a penalty, including disqualification, could be assessed for being late. Nothing changed there.

Why This Rule Matters for IRC Sec. 7502

IRC Sec. 7502 allows certain tax documents (returns, elections, claims, etc.) to be treated as timely filed if the envelope bears a postmark dated on or before the filing deadline.

If the postmark date is delayed due to USPS processing:

·      A return mailed on the due date.

·      But postmarked one or more days later.

·      May fail the IRC Sec. 7502 safe harbor, even though the taxpayer mailed it on time. This risk is heightened by USPS transportation optimization efforts that move mail to centralized processing facilities later in the mailing cycle.

Practical Takeaways for Tax Professionals

•       Never ever rely on collection-box deposits near deadlines.
•       Always use Certified Mail, Registered Mail, or USPS Certificates of Mailing for critical filings (which includes just about all filed returns), or use electronic filing or, where permitted, private delivery services.

Why This Matters Now

This new rule does not change IRC Sec. 7502 at all. However, it clarifies USPS practices in a way that increases taxpayer exposure if traditional mailing habits are used near deadlines.

Advisors should update client instructions about the change to regional postmarking and what clients need to know and internal procedures to reflect that “mailed on time” is no longer the same as “postmarked on time.” On second thought, tell them to mail every return certified mail, return receipt requested, with no other options.

HOPE THIS HELPS YOU HELP OTHERS MAKE A POSITIVE DIFFERENCE!

Paul Hood

CITE AS:

LISI Income Tax Planning Newsletter #288 (December 22, 2025) at http://www.leimbergservices.com. Copyright © 2025 Paul Hood. (LISI) All rights reserved. Reproduction in Any Form or Forwarding to Any Person Prohibited Without Express Permission. Reproduction in Any Form or Forwarding to Any Person Prohibited - Without Express Permission. Our agreement with you does not allow you to use or upload content from LISI into any hardware, software, bot, or external application, including any use(s) for artificial intelligence technologies such as large language models, generative AI, machine learning or AI system. This newsletter is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information regarding the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that LISI is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional advice or services. If such advice is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Statements of fact or opinion are the responsibility of the authors and do not represent an opinion on the part of the officers or staff of LISI.